The admiralty law is distinct from the common law and the line of demarcation is to be sought in the English decisions before the Revolution and those of the state courts prior to the constitution. See La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 391, 5 L. Ed. 115; Bains v. The James and Catherine, Baldw. 558, Fed. Cas. No. 756; Sawyer v. Steamboat Co., 46 Me. 400, 74 Am. Dec. 463. And as to the adoption of the English ecclesiastical law, see Le Barron v. Le Barron, 35 Vt. 365; Crump v. Morgan, 38 N. C. 91, 40 Am. Dec. 447 ; Perry v. Perry, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 501; Brinkley v. Brinkley, 50 N. Y. 184, 10 Am. Rep. 460. New York has adopted only so much of the common law as is applicable to the circumstances of the colonies and con formable to her institutions ; Cutting v. Cut ting, 86 N. Y. 522; Shayne v. Publishing Co., 168 N. Y. 70, 61 N. E. 115, 55 L. R. A. 777, 85 Am. St. Rep. 654. In adopting the common law in NeW York, principles inconsonant with the circumstances or repugnant to the spirit of American institutions were not adopted; Barnes v. Terminal Co., 193 N. Y. 378, 85 N. E. 1093, 127 Am. St. Rep. 962.
It does not become a part of the law of a state of its own vigor, but is adopted by con stitutional provision, statute or decision; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Milling Co., 218 U. S. 406, 31 bup. Ct. 59, 54 L. Ed. 1088, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 220, 21 Ann. Cas. 815. As to Indiana, see Sopher v. State, 169 Ind. 177, 81 N. E. 913, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 172, 14 Ann. Cas. 27.
"There is no body of federal common law separate and distinct from the common law existing in the several states in the sense that there is a body of statute law enacted by congress 'separate and distinct from the body of statute law enacted by the several states. But it is an entirely different thing to hold that there is no common law in force general ly throughout the United States, and that the countless multitude of interstate com mercial transactions are subject to no rules and burdened by no restrictions other than those expressed in the statutes of congress ;" Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Shp. Ct. 561, 45 L. Ed.- 765, following Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 564, 31 L. Ed. 308 ; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591, 8 L. Ed. 1055; New York Q. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357, 21 L. Ed. 627. There is an elaborate opinion in Murray v. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 24, on this sub ject. See also 36 Amer. L. Rev. 498; 18 Harv. L. Rev. 134.
Sir F. Pollock expresses the opinion that there is a common law of the United States as distinguished from that of a state. 3 Encycl. of Laws of England 142.
In general, too, the statutes of England are not understood to be included, except so far as they have been recognized by colonial legislation, but the course pursued has been rather to re-enact such English statutes as were deemed applicable to our case. Those passed since the settlement of the particular colony are not in force, un less accepted by it, or expressly made to apply to it; if these were suitable to the condition of the colony they were usually accepted ; Baker v. Mattocks, Quincy (Mass.) 72 ; Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 280, 8 L. Ed. 120; Morris v. Vander en, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 64, 1 L. Ed. 38.
Theke cannot be said to be a settled rule as to what date is to be fixed as determining what British statutes were received as part of the common law. Many states 'fix July
4, 1776. This is provided by -constitution in Florida, Maryland and Rhode Island, and by statute in Kentucky; in other states 4th Jac. I. is the period named after which Eng lish statutes are not included, as Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Vir ginia, Wyoming (but the last four except state. 43 Eliz. c. 6, § 2; 13 Eliz. c. 8 and 37 Hen.' VIII. c. 9) ; McCool v. Smith, 1 Black (U. S.) 459, 17 L. Ed. 218; Scott v. Lunt, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 596, 8 L. Ed. 797 ; Baker's Adm'r v. Crandall, 78 Mo. 587, 47 Am. Rep. 126 ; Herr v. Johnson, 11 Colo. 393, 18 Pac. 342. As to English statutes in force in Pennsyl vania, see Report of the Judges in Roberts, Eng. Stat.; Boehm v. Engle, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 15, 1 L. Ed. 17 ; Biddle v. Shippen, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 19, 1 L. Ed. 19 ; Respublica v. Mesca, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 73, 1 L. Ed. 42; Shewel v. Fell, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 17 ; id., 4 Yeates (Pa.) 47; Johnson v. Hessel, 134 Pa. 315, 19 Atl. 700. Generally, it may be stated that the statutes adopted prior to the Revolution, and held applicable under rules stated, are as cepted as part of the common law ; Hamil ton v. Kneeland, 1 Nev. 40; Sackett v. Sac kett, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 309 ; Coburn v. Harvey, 18 Wis. 148. But see Matthews v. Ansley, 31 Ala. 20; Bogardus v: Trinity Church, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 178; Crawford v. Chapman, 17 Ohlo 452 ; In re Lamphere, 61 Mich. 105, 27 N. W. 882. Upon the subject of English statutes as part of the common law see an able note on the whole subject of this title in 22 L. R. A. 501. By reason of the modi fications arising out of our different condi tion, and those established by American stat utes and by the course of American adjudica tion, the common law of America differs widely in many details from the common law of England ; but the fact that this difference has not been introduced by violent changes, but has grown up from the native vigor of the system, identities the whole as one juris prudence.
See works of Franklin, by Sparks, p. 271, as to the adoption of the common law in America ; see also Cooley, Const. Lim. (2d ed.) 34, n. 35; Pierce v. Swan Point Cemetery, 10 R. I. 227, 14 Am. Rep. 667; 2 Wait, Actions and Defences, 276; Reinsch, English Common Law in the Early American Colonies, 1 Sel. Essays in Anglo Amer. L. H. 367 ; Sioussat, Extension of English Statutes to the Plantations, id. 416; Jenks, Teutonic Law, id. 49 ; Ed. Combina tions 216; James C. Carter, The Law, etc.; 0. W. Holmes, The Common Law ; Gray, Sour6es of the Law ; 23 Q. B. D. 611, where Bowen, L. J., speaks of it as "an arsenal of sound common sense." A person has no property, no vested inter est, in any rule of common law. That is only one of the forms of municipal law, and is no more sacred than any other. Rights of property which have been created by the common law cannot be taken away without due process, but the law itself, as a rule of conduct, may be changed at will . . . 01 the legislature, unless prevented by consti tutional limitations. Indeed, the great office of statutes is to remedy defects in the com mon law as they are developed, and to adapt it to the changes of time and circumstances; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 134, 24 L. Ed. 77 ; quoted and approved, Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 50, 32 Sup. Ct. 169, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44.
See LAW MERCHANT.